He does make a good point that the developers are starting to make games too easy for the masses and that making games "hard" is an artform. It can never feel cheap or just tough for stupidity sake (something I find on the expert level in Guitar Hero 3). It's always gotta feel like something you can do if you just get that pattern down or learn how to do this one thing. That's when it hits your competitive nature and when it's something you want to do and when it's an accomplishment. It's a very fine line that I think is designed mostly on feel than anything else.
I have to ask this: are people finding Mega Man 9 hard? I think it's a little tough (which I like) but not THAT hard. Certainly not as tough as Zero 1 or 2 or the very tough Ikaruga, old Ghosts 'N Goblins, Super Ghouls 'N Ghosts, or a lot of the really hard games of yesteryear. I made it to Wily's 3rd form in the teleportation room in about 4 1/2 hours (I save it after every play session to keep the bolts I collect so that's my total play time) while only using one E tank (on Plug Man; beat him way out of order) and one M tank (on Wily to get to form 3) I found along the way. That includes about 4 different game sessions in Wily's castle so I've had to "waste" time getting back to the teleportation room 3 additional times. I have now bought 4 E tanks to get through Wily (he's quite tough) mostly because I can't quite get the timing of that first form and I have yet to sit down and play it since Sunday.
This isn't a way for me to brag or anything but I'm just a little surprised with all the talk about the difficult of this and both the old and new BC:RA.
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
WSJ article tackles tough game issue
- Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
They're going to sell 2 'harder' modes for MM9 so obviously the default difficulty can't be that tough. From watching the videos, MM9 is definitely designed differently from most of the recent Megamans. It's not like in the recent Megaman games where even hitting the bosses at where they're weak at still produces an equivalent of 1 bar of damage. The rate the player takes damage compared to the rate the boss takes damage is actually comparable as opposed to lopsided. Like I said most of the recent Megaman games assume you get to the end with every powerup that exists, even when they trash your score like the Zero series, so the bosses have that kind of durability to account for that. Since MM9 you absolutely only have 1 lifebar + ETanks, it has to put limits on the ability of a boss to do damage. You simply don't have anything like Zero 3 where Omega can almost kill you from full health to 0 in one combo if you didn't use any health upgrades.
I think the 2 harder modes are for the masochists who thought Viewtiful Joe on Adult was easy.
The patterns of the bosses with the old-school gameplay mechanics make the bosses a bit tough with your buster. You don't lose health at the same speed and the buster only takes 1 off for each hit. Sure it ain't Zero hard but it's not that easy either. It's just not this incredibly tough game everyone keeps saying it is
The patterns of the bosses with the old-school gameplay mechanics make the bosses a bit tough with your buster. You don't lose health at the same speed and the buster only takes 1 off for each hit. Sure it ain't Zero hard but it's not that easy either. It's just not this incredibly tough game everyone keeps saying it is
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
The problem with hard games is that they usually end up as just being ego-trips for the developer. I finally beat Touhou Youyoumu on one continue yesterday and the ending notes said "I thought people who can't beat this in one continue on normal just suck so now I lowered the bar to one continue on easy to see the ending (I beat it on easy)." Ninja Gaiden seems to be in the same boat in terms of design philsophy, and players can tell when a game is out to get you as opposed to help you.
This article http://www.sirlin.net/archive/difficult ... -in-games/ pretty much sums up what I feel about the difficulty issue. Everything the guy said about Rez can be applied to any generic shooter and probably most action games.
This article http://www.sirlin.net/archive/difficult ... -in-games/ pretty much sums up what I feel about the difficulty issue. Everything the guy said about Rez can be applied to any generic shooter and probably most action games.
When I say 1 bar I mean 1 unit of health in Megaman game. From the video it sure looks like the Mega Buster does more than 1 bar of damage to most bosses, even Wily. That alone makes a big difference.Zeus wrote:I think the 2 harder modes are for the masochists who thought Viewtiful Joe on Adult was easy.
The patterns of the bosses with the old-school gameplay mechanics make the bosses a bit tough with your buster. You don't lose health at the same speed and the buster only takes 1 off for each hit. Sure it ain't Zero hard but it's not that easy either. It's just not this incredibly tough game everyone keeps saying it is
Nope, the buster does one to each for each hit. That's why I had to use an energy tank on Plug Man. What they did was make the recovery from being hit much less so you can hit them two or three times in a row pretty quickly.Don wrote:When I say 1 bar I mean 1 unit of health in Megaman game. From the video it sure looks like the Mega Buster does more than 1 bar of damage to most bosses, even Wily. That alone makes a big difference.Zeus wrote:I think the 2 harder modes are for the masochists who thought Viewtiful Joe on Adult was easy.
The patterns of the bosses with the old-school gameplay mechanics make the bosses a bit tough with your buster. You don't lose health at the same speed and the buster only takes 1 off for each hit. Sure it ain't Zero hard but it's not that easy either. It's just not this incredibly tough game everyone keeps saying it is
See Ninja Gaiden for NES was another one of those "this is pretty damned hard but I know I can do it" ones to me. I ended up beating the first two with one man each so it's not "impossible".
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
Well if they have a low invinicibility frame then it's really the same as the Mega Buster doing elevated damage. Anybody can fire off multiple Mega Busters easy. It's not like Zero series where you almost have to go through an entire pattern subset before the invinicibility wears off.
I was under the impression that if you didn't beat Ninja Gaiden in one player you weren't beating it at all because the ninja powers make a huge difference on your ability to defeat a boss fast.
I was under the impression that if you didn't beat Ninja Gaiden in one player you weren't beating it at all because the ninja powers make a huge difference on your ability to defeat a boss fast.
Yeah, it's sort of similar. But other than Splash Woman and maybe Galaxy Man, they're a little too difficult with the buster alone. The patters are too tough, you basically need the special weaponDon wrote:Well if they have a low invinicibility frame then it's really the same as the Mega Buster doing elevated damage. Anybody can fire off multiple Mega Busters easy. It's not like Zero series where you almost have to go through an entire pattern subset before the invinicibility wears off.
I was under the impression that if you didn't beat Ninja Gaiden in one player you weren't beating it at all because the ninja powers make a huge difference on your ability to defeat a boss fast.
I've beaten all of the Gaiden bosses with just the sword, including all of the end bosses. But it's MUCH easier if you have the spin attack or, in some cases, the fire or large shruiken
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
Ninja Gaiden is hard for a reason. The game mechanics would be a waste if the combos were put into easier enemies. You would just do the same combos over and over again, instead of trying to switch weapons and switch combos depending on the enemy.Don wrote:The problem with hard games is that they usually end up as just being ego-trips for the developer. I finally beat Touhou Youyoumu on one continue yesterday and the ending notes said "I thought people who can't beat this in one continue on normal just suck so now I lowered the bar to one continue on easy to see the ending (I beat it on easy)." Ninja Gaiden seems to be in the same boat in terms of design philsophy, and players can tell when a game is out to get you as opposed to help you.
I'll admit that I died. A lot. On Ninja Gaiden 2, I still die. A lot. But, I was the one who picked Warrior difficulty, which is recommended for people who have played the first game. I could have made it easier, but I want the challenge so that I don't feel like I could button mash and make it through the game with no effort. (I just wish that the bosses were a tad bit easier, though.)
Well, you could just replace that idea with achievements. The achievement system is tailor made for doing more challenging things to make the game harder and give much better replay value.Don wrote:This article http://www.sirlin.net/archive/difficult ... -in-games/ pretty much sums up what I feel about the difficulty issue. Everything the guy said about Rez can be applied to any generic shooter and probably most action games.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
I think achievements is just a reflection of a good game design as opposed to a solution by itself. There are people doing score run competition in Touhou Project and you don't get a medal for having 3 billion points when a score of 1 billion is sufficient to clear the game without dying on the highest difficulty setting (it's unrealistic to score that high if you died at any point of the game) but that doesn't stop the hardcore guys from trying to top each other. If you want to give out an ultra hardcore gold medal for 2 billion points and even more hardcore platinum medal for 3 billion points that's fine, but really the reason people did it was because they can, presumably because it's fun to try to get better at a game you care about. And it works because the guy getting 3 billion points doesn't have a more enjoyable game than the guy getting 1 billion points (both can beat the game without dying).
The problem is that if you can't score in the 1 billion range, you don't actually get to see everything the game has to offer. If you're only capable of getting say 100 million, you not only can't see every boss's ultimate patterns, but it's doubtful you can even beat the game at all on any setting higher than easy, and most likely you just end up with the bad ending. I'd think the fact that you score 100 million versus a super hardcore pro doing 3 billion is enough to satisfy the ego of the hardcore, but it seems like some games think that it's not enough that your score indicates you suck, they have to make sure you don't even get anywhere.
The Megaman Zero games also will constantly remind you that you have a rating of F minus infinity if you suck at it, and half of them you can't see the boss's EX attacks on a rank less than A. Again, it's a classical example of insult on injury. It's bad enough you suck at a game and have a hard time beating it, but it's like the game's determined to let you know that you suck.
I have noticed that a scoring system, which is mostly done away since the NES era, is actually a vastly better way than a graded system. Assuming you're able to see what the entire game has to offer, a score of 100 million doesn't sound like you're a total failure even if the world record is 3 billion or 3 zillion. This is true even if you scale it down to more comprehensible numbers (say, 10K versus 3 million). But if the best rank in S++ and you got F-- just about everyone will take that to mean 'you suck', even if the difference between those two ranks are numerically smaller than say the difference between 10K and 3 million. I think Devil May Cry at least tried to take some of the sting out of the grading system, since it has some sort of good sounding adjective for every grade. But ultimately I think people prefer to know they score 10000 out of 1 million as opposed to getting 90 Ds and 10 Cs.
The problem is that if you can't score in the 1 billion range, you don't actually get to see everything the game has to offer. If you're only capable of getting say 100 million, you not only can't see every boss's ultimate patterns, but it's doubtful you can even beat the game at all on any setting higher than easy, and most likely you just end up with the bad ending. I'd think the fact that you score 100 million versus a super hardcore pro doing 3 billion is enough to satisfy the ego of the hardcore, but it seems like some games think that it's not enough that your score indicates you suck, they have to make sure you don't even get anywhere.
The Megaman Zero games also will constantly remind you that you have a rating of F minus infinity if you suck at it, and half of them you can't see the boss's EX attacks on a rank less than A. Again, it's a classical example of insult on injury. It's bad enough you suck at a game and have a hard time beating it, but it's like the game's determined to let you know that you suck.
I have noticed that a scoring system, which is mostly done away since the NES era, is actually a vastly better way than a graded system. Assuming you're able to see what the entire game has to offer, a score of 100 million doesn't sound like you're a total failure even if the world record is 3 billion or 3 zillion. This is true even if you scale it down to more comprehensible numbers (say, 10K versus 3 million). But if the best rank in S++ and you got F-- just about everyone will take that to mean 'you suck', even if the difference between those two ranks are numerically smaller than say the difference between 10K and 3 million. I think Devil May Cry at least tried to take some of the sting out of the grading system, since it has some sort of good sounding adjective for every grade. But ultimately I think people prefer to know they score 10000 out of 1 million as opposed to getting 90 Ds and 10 Cs.